2023 (8) TMI 1223 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses writ appeal on registration of decree; no interest in property created.

The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, The District Registrar, Madurai and The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Madurai Versus M. Murugan and S. Sabeer Hussain

The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the decree, being an agreement of sale, does not create an interest in immovable property and is not ... Refusal ot register the document - Correctness of valuation made in a decree - Section 47(A) of the Registration Act - petition was resisted by the appellants contending that the decree relates to a property which belongs to the Government and therefore, the same cannot be registered in view of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 - HELD THAT:- The decree granted by the Court which is sought to be registered is nothing but an agreement of sale subject to certain conditions. As provided under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, such a decree does not create an interest in immovable property. Very reading of Sub-Section 1 of Section 22-A of the Act, would reveal that what prohibited is the registration of an instrument relating to transfer of immovable properties by way of Sale, Gift, Mortgage, Exchange or Lease. Therefore, an agreement of sale which does not create interest in immovable property would not come within the ambit of Section 22-A - the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be agreed upon on this question. Place of registration - HELD THAT:- The office of the third respondent within whose jurisdiction the Court had passed the decree is situate, will also be a proper office. Moreover, since the very decree is only an agreement of sale which does not affect immovable property, it will not come within the ambit of Section 28. Therefore, registration can be done either at the office of the Sub-Registrar in whose Sub-District, the original decree or order was made or at any other place as desired by the parties to that document - the objections of the learned Additional Advocate General also cannot be sustained on this issue also. Pendency of the writ appeal - HELD THAT:- As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, the writ appeal has been filed challenging a direction issued by the writ Court to grant patta to the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.12425 of 2008. The defendant in the suit along with others had in fact, made a claim over the property. Therefore, pendency of that writ appeal cannot be a ground to refuse registration. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Registration of decree relating to government property under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908.2. Place of registration for decrees affecting immovable property.3. Impact of pending litigation on registration.Summary:Issue 1: Registration of Decree Relating to Government Property under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908The appellants contended that the decree could not be registered as it pertained to government property, invoking Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 22(A) prohibits the registration of instruments relating to the transfer of immovable property by way of Sale, Gift, Mortgage, Exchange, or Lease. The decree in question was an agreement of sale, which does not create an interest in immovable property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 22(A).Issue 2: Place of Registration for Decrees Affecting Immovable PropertyThe appellants argued that the decree should be registered only with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar where the property is situated, citing Section 29(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. The court clarified that Section 29(2) allows for the registration of a decree in the office of the Sub-Registrar in whose sub-district the original decree was made or, if it does not affect immovable property, in any other Sub-Registrar's office as desired by the parties. Since the decree was an agreement of sale and did not create an interest in immovable property, it could be registered either in the jurisdiction where the decree was made or any other place as chosen by the parties.Issue 3: Impact of Pending Litigation on RegistrationThe appellants cited the pendency of a writ appeal as a ground for refusing registration. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the writ appeal was related to a direction to issue patta to a third party and did not directly impact the registration of the decree in question.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that the decree, being an agreement of sale, does not create an interest in immovable property and is not subject to the restrictions of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The decree could be registered either in the jurisdiction where it was made or any other place as chosen by the parties, and the pending writ appeal did not constitute a valid ground for refusing registration. The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.